HENRIETTA PICZON-HERMOSO AND BEZALEL PICZON HERMOSO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. SYLVESTER C. PARADO, RESPONDENT.

Piczon-Hermoso versus Parado

The Case

This is an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Henrietta Piczon-Hermoso and Bezalel Piczon Hermoso against Attorney Sylvester Parado. The complainants are the successors-in-interest of Estrella Piczon-Patalinghug, who was the declared owner of a parcel of land in Simala, Sibonga, Cebu. They charge that Attorney Parado notarized two deeds of absolute sale even though the affiants never personally appeared before him, and that he was not even a commissioned notary public at the time. The case matters because it gathers in one place the Court's settled teaching on the public character of notarization, the personal-appearance requirement under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the ethical consequences that follow when a lawyer betrays that office.

Procedural History

The complainants filed the administrative complaint directly before the Supreme Court. The Court repeatedly directed Attorney Parado to comment on the complaint, but he never did. The case was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Integrated Bar likewise required him to submit an answer, directed the parties to file their mandatory conference briefs and position papers, and set the mandatory conference. Only the complainants complied; Attorney Parado filed no pleading and never appeared.

The Integrated Bar Investigating Commissioner recommended that Attorney Parado be disbarred and that his notarial commission be revoked effective immediately, if still existing, for violating Canon 10 and Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Integrated Bar Board of Governors adopted and approved that recommendation but modified the penalty, imposing suspension from the practice of law for one year, immediate revocation of his notarial commission if subsisting, and disqualification from appointment as notary public for two years, with a stern warning. The matter then came before the Supreme Court for final action.

Facts

Estrella Piczon-Patalinghug was the declared owner of a parcel of land designated as Lot Number 3545, situated in Simala, Sibonga, Cebu, and registered for tax purposes under Tax Declaration Number 12357. After her death, portions of that property were transferred to Spouses Salvador and Darlwin Cesar by virtue of two deeds of absolute sale, both notarized by Attorney Parado on the fifteenth of February 2007.

The complainants alleged that on that very date Estrella could not have personally executed, appeared, or signed the deeds before Attorney Parado, because she had just been discharged from the hospital that afternoon after undergoing confinement. Her mental faculties were deteriorating as a result of chemotherapy treatments, making it impossible for her to attend to her personal affairs or enter into a contract of sale. Her husband, Michelangelo Patalinghug, who was blind, could not have appeared either, since he was already bedridden even before that date and remained so until his death on the thirteenth of August 2007.

When the case reached the Integrated Bar, it was found that Attorney Parado had notarized the deeds without the affiants personally appearing before him, and worse, that he was not a commissioned notary public in 2007. Throughout the proceedings he neither filed any pleading nor appeared at the mandatory conference.

Issues

• Whether or not Attorney Parado should be held administratively liable for notarizing the deeds without the affiants personally appearing before him.
• Whether or not his act of notarizing documents when he was not a commissioned notary public in 2007 constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Whether or not his failure to comply with the directives of the Court and the Integrated Bar, and his failure to answer the complaint, amount to conduct warranting sanction.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, paragraph b, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides:

Section 2. Prohibitions. — x x x x (b) A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document — (1) is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified by the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

This is the very requirement Attorney Parado breached, since the affiants never appeared before him at the time of notarization.

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Canon 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law of and legal processes.

This canon is engaged because a lawyer who misrepresents himself as a commissioned notary public fails to obey the laws of the land.

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

This rule is engaged because notarizing without authority is an act of falsehood and deceit.

Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Canon 10 — A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

This canon is engaged because the notarization was a misrepresentation made in the course of legal processes.

Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

This rule is engaged because Attorney Parado's false claim of notarial authority misled the public and the courts.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Attorney Parado's administrative liability is beyond dispute. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act, but one invested with substantive public interest. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity, and a notarized document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements of his duties, otherwise public confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined. A notary public is not allowed to notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to its contents and truth, so that the notary may verify the genuineness of the signature and ascertain that the document is the party's free act and deed. Since the affiants did not appear before him, he violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

On the second issue, the Court held that a breach of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, because an erring lawyer who is remiss in his functions as notary public is considered to have violated his oath as a lawyer. He does not only fail to fulfill his solemn oath of upholding and obeying the law and its legal processes, but he also commits an act of falsehood and engages in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct. By misrepresenting himself as a commissioned notary public in 2007, Attorney Parado violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10. His acts undermined the integrity of the office of a notary public and degraded the function of notarization, falling miserably short of the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing required of lawyers.

On the third issue, the Court held that his failure to comply with the separate directives of the Court and the Integrated Bar displayed an utter lack of respect for the Court, the Integrated Bar, and its proceedings. Quoting its earlier ruling, the Court said:

[A lawyer's] failure to answer the complaint against him and his failure to appear at the investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrate his despiciency for his oath of office.

On the penalty, the Court adopted the sanctions imposed in a similar case: suspension from the practice of law for two years, immediate revocation of the notarial commission if existing, and disqualification from appointment as notary public for two years.

Doctrine

Notarization is not a routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest; it converts a private document into a public document and entitles it to full faith and credit upon its face. Under Section 2, paragraph b, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public may perform a notarial act only if the signatory is personally in his presence at the time of notarization and is personally known to him or identified through competent evidence of identity. A breach of this requirement is likewise a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10, because a lawyer remiss in his notarial functions violates his oath and commits an act of falsehood and deceit. Finally, a lawyer's failure to answer the complaint and to appear at the investigation is evidence of resistance to lawful orders and of contempt for his oath of office.

Disposition

The Court found Attorney Parado guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, suspended him from the practice of law for two years, prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and revoked his incumbent notarial commission, if any, all effective immediately upon his receipt of the decision.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest, so a notary must require the signatory's personal appearance. Examiners use this case in legal ethics and notarial practice questions on the personal-appearance requirement, on notarizing without a commission as a violation of the lawyer's oath, and on the proper penalties of suspension, revocation, and disqualification from appointment as notary public.